HB 2680
In CommitteeHouse
Garnishment/attorneys' fees
Concerning the recovery of attorneys' fees in garnishment proceedings.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill updates how much money must be held when someone’s wages or bank account is garnished in Washington. It clarifies how attorney fees and other costs are calculated and included in the garnishment amount, and sets a maximum attorney fee of $300.
- Requires the writ of garnishment to clearly state the total amount the employer or bank must hold, including unpaid judgment (if any), interest, estimated future interest, taxable costs, and attorney fees.
- Sets a maximum attorney fee for garnishment cases: the greater of $100 or 10% of the amount collected, but no more than $300.
- Allows plaintiffs to include estimated daily interest during the garnishment process, capped at 12% per year or the judgment rate — whichever is lower.
- Specifies what costs can be included in the garnishment (e.g., filing fees, service fees, certified mail, answer fees) and requires them to be estimated upfront.
- Gives courts discretion to increase the amount held if the plaintiff shows 'good cause'.
Who is affected
- Debtors — People or businesses who owe money and have wages or bank accounts garnished — this bill changes how much money must be held during garnishment and adds clearer rules for attorney fees.
- Creditors / Plaintiffs — Creditors or plaintiffs who sue to collect debts — this bill clarifies how much they can claim in attorney fees and other costs when garnishing wages or bank accounts.
- Attorneys — Attorneys who represent parties in garnishment cases — this bill sets a maximum attorney fee and defines how it is calculated, affecting their compensation in these cases.
- Courts / Court Clerks — Courts and court clerks — they must follow new rules for calculating and documenting the amount to be held in garnishment and may see changes in processing time or complexity.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (3)
Capping attorney fees at $300 prevents predatory or disproportionate fee awards in garnishment cases — especially important in small-claims-style debt collection where fees could otherwise exceed the underlying debt (e.g., a $200 fee on a $150 debt), which disproportionately harms low-income debtors and can trap them in cycles of debt enforcement.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (2) — attorney fee cap of $300 (max), floor of $100 or 10% of amount collectedMandating that the garnishment writ clearly state the total amount to be held improves transparency and allows debtors and garnishees (banks/employers) to verify whether the claimed amount is accurate — reducing errors, over-garnishment, and confusion, especially for people without legal help.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (1) — requires clear statement of total amount to be held, including judgment, interest, costs, and feesExplicitly listing recoverable costs prevents plaintiffs from inflating or including unauthorized charges in garnishment proceedings, protecting debtors from hidden or inflated fees — a common abuse in small-claims debt collection that hits low-income households hardest.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (2) — specifies allowable costs (e.g., filing, service, certified mail, answer fees)
Potential Concerns (4)
The attorney fee cap ($300 max) may reduce access to legal representation for debtors who need to contest improper or excessive garnishments, especially in cases where the debt is contested or the garnishment is procedurally flawed — many low- and middle-income debtors rely on contingency-based or hourly legal services, and the capped fee may discourage attorneys from taking such cases, weakening due process.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (2) — attorney fee cap of $300, with floor of $100 or 10% of amount collectedPermitting plaintiffs to include estimated future interest and costs in pre-judgment garnishment amounts may increase the financial burden on debtors before they’ve had a full opportunity to contest the claim — particularly harmful to people with limited cash reserves, as it can trigger deeper bank account freezes or wage garnishments than the actual disputed debt.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (1)(a)(ii) — allows inclusion of estimated future interest and costs in pre-judgment garnishmentsWhile the 12% cap appears protective, it still permits high interest accrual during garnishment (e.g., $300 on a $2,500 balance over 4 months), and since garnishment often precedes final resolution, debtors may face compounding interest on funds they cannot access — disproportionately affecting low-income households who rely on every dollar for basic needs.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (3) — interest capped at 12% or judgment rate, whichever is lowerThe provision allowing courts to increase the amount held upon a showing of 'good cause' introduces discretion that may be inconsistently applied — potentially enabling over-garnishment in cases where plaintiffs make broad or vague assertions, undermining procedural fairness for debtors without legal representation.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (1) — requires detailed writs but allows court to increase held amount on 'good cause'
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and moderate-income debtors benefit significantly — capped attorney fees and clearer writs reduce over-garnishment and improve ability to dispute errors. However, those seeking legal defense against garnishment may find fewer attorneys willing to take cases due to the $300 cap, especially if the case is complex or time-intensive.
Creditors (e.g., collection agencies, landlords, small lenders) benefit from clearer rules and predictable fee recovery, but lose the ability to recover higher attorney fees in complex cases — net effect is modestly negative for large creditors, neutral-to-slightly-positive for small creditors who value predictability.
Attorneys handling garnishment cases will earn less per case due to the $300 cap, especially in cases where fees previously exceeded $300 (e.g., in high-balance or contested garnishments). This may reduce incentive to represent plaintiffs in marginal cases, but may encourage volume-based practice.
Courts may see slightly increased administrative burden due to more detailed writ requirements, but the bill’s clarity may reduce disputes and motions to quash or modify garnishments, potentially lowering long-term caseload pressure.
Banks and employers acting as garnishees benefit from the requirement to hold a clearly stated amount — reducing errors, disputes, and liability for over-holding funds. This simplifies compliance and reduces legal risk.